Fulfilled the law . . . fulfilled the law. I have heard my mother-in-law use this to dodge passages in the bible she disagrees with while, simultaneously, using that same bible to "prove" her point by quoting passages with which she is in complete accord.

What EXACTLY does "Fulfilled the law" mean to you. Which sins that were forbidden by the omniscient creator are no longer sins? Clearly Bacon Cheeseburgers are OK now but what about homosexuality? Has that sin been fulfilled? Adultery?

Which sins are now off the table and where, if you don't mind my asking, did Jesus state that fulfilling the law meant nullifying the law?

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

Fulfilled the law . . . fulfilled the law. I have heard my mother-in-law use this to dodge passages in the bible she disagrees with while, simultaneously, using that same bible to "prove" her point by quoting passages with which she is in complete accord.

I can't comment on this since I wouldn't know what verses she is using nor the context she is using them in.

Quote

What EXACTLY does "Fulfilled the law" mean to you.

I hope what it means to me is what the Bible says it means.

John Piper explains it succinctly and clearly:

The law was kept perfectly by Christ. And all its penalties against God’s sinful people were poured out on Christ. Therefore, the law is now manifestly not the path to righteousness, Christ is. The ultimate goal of the law is that we would look to Christ, not law-keeping, for our righteousness.

Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Therefore with the coming of Christ virtually everything has changed:

The blood sacrifices ceased because Christ fulfilled all that they were pointing toward. He was the final, unrepeatable sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:12: “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”The priesthood that stood between worshipper and God has ceased. Hebrews 7:23-24: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.”

The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore Christianity has not geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem. John 4:21-23: “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.’” John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . He was speaking about the temple of his body.” Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18-19: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean).’”

The establishment of civil law on the basis of an ethnically rooted people, who are ruled directly by God, has ceased. The people of God are no longer a unified political body or an ethnic group or a nation-state, but are exiles and sojourners among all ethnic groups and all states. Therefore, God’s will for states is not taken directly from the Old Testament theocratic order, but should now be reestablished from place to place and from time to time by means that correspond to God’s sovereign rule over all peoples, and that correspond to the fact that genuine obedience, rooted as it is in faith in Christ, cannot be coerced by law. The state is therefore grounded in God, but not expressive of God’s immediate rule. Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.”

I'm very sorry to hear about your son. I lost my brother this year and watching my mother cope has been heart-breaking.

Your gift to your friend in need is absolutely an expression of charity and love and I am grateful there are a lot of people like you in the world. Some of us are not gifted with a very deep love for one another. Some of us need God to help us develop love for our neighbors (not to mention our enemies).

Sounds incredibly selfish. Both parts of what you say. The first part because it makes you feel good; and, while it helps whomever it is targeted toward, it helps you first and foremost. The second part is definitely selfish but also asinine--in that one needs someone's validation to not only do the "good" thing but that they did it--recognition for the deed.

Try giving without being selfish but the religious, especially Christians, can't do that because they need not only the validation but also the recognition so they can flaunt that they're the good ones because their religion makes them that way.

I'm very sorry to hear about your son. I lost my brother this year and watching my mother cope has been heart-breaking.

Your gift to your friend in need is absolutely an expression of charity and love and I am grateful there are a lot of people like you in the world. Some of us are not gifted with a very deep love for one another. Some of us need God to help us develop love for our neighbors (not to mention our enemies).

Sounds incredibly selfish. Both parts of what you say. The first part because it makes you feel good; and, while it helps whomever it is targeted toward, it helps you first and foremost. The second part is definitely selfish but also asinine--in that one needs someone's validation to not only do the "good" thing but that they did it--recognition for the deed.

Try giving without being selfish but the religious, especially Christians, can't do that because they need not only the validation but also the recognition so they can flaunt that they're the good ones because their religion makes them that way.

-Nam

Yes, it did feel good to empathize with someone else. I didn't realize an act was selfish if it involved pleasure of any kind.

Christianity is about becoming something that you are not yet. To point to the failures of a Christian says nothing at all about the religion itself. Christ teaches to give anonymously: "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth".

Why did your god not send food to that child but send food to the vulture?

Being mad at God for His perceived injustices does not make him imaginary. Consult Leibniz about theodicy or read C.L. Lewis' The Problem of Pain for a much better answer than I can (or wish to) squeeze into few paragraphs.

Why did your god not send food to that child but send food to the vulture?

Being mad at God for His perceived injustices does not make him imaginary. Consult Leibniz about theodicy or read C.L. Lewis' The Problem of Pain for a much better answer than I can (or wish to) squeeze into few paragraphs.

Hello Matthieu, and welcome.

Say, do you see that curly hook-like thing at the end of Graybeard's sentence? It's often referred to as a question mark. That is to say, it signals the end of an interrogative statement. In other words, it's a question - in this case, it's a request that you provide some information to help Graybeard understand some of your previous responses.

Unfortunately, you seem to have misinterpreted Graybeard's question as an "I-statement" containing some invisible and implicit indication of his emotional state.

Here's an example of an I-statement:

I feel that the fact that you responded to Graybeard's question not with an answer, but a statement containing weasel words and loaded language, is because you desire to avoid this uncomfortable request and to change the subject.

Do you see the difference? (Question). Of course you do, and I'm so happy for that. (I-statement containing explicit indication of emotion).

Now that we've cleared up that little misunderstanding, this would be a good time for you to get back on track and to directly provide a first-person answer to Graybeard's question.

Always happy to help.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 02:15:00 AM by xyzzy »

Logged

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman

I'm very sorry to hear about your son. I lost my brother this year and watching my mother cope has been heart-breaking.

Your gift to your friend in need is absolutely an expression of charity and love and I am grateful there are a lot of people like you in the world. Some of us are not gifted with a very deep love for one another. Some of us need God to help us develop love for our neighbors (not to mention our enemies).

Sounds incredibly selfish. Both parts of what you say. The first part because it makes you feel good; and, while it helps whomever it is targeted toward, it helps you first and foremost. The second part is definitely selfish but also asinine--in that one needs someone's validation to not only do the "good" thing but that they did it--recognition for the deed.

Try giving without being selfish but the religious, especially Christians, can't do that because they need not only the validation but also the recognition so they can flaunt that they're the good ones because their religion makes them that way.

-Nam

Yes, it did feel good to empathize with someone else. I didn't realize an act was selfish if it involved pleasure of any kind.

Christianity is about becoming something that you are not yet. To point to the failures of a Christian says nothing at all about the religion itself. Christ teaches to give anonymously: "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth".

Christians, for the most part, don't give anonymously. They have this selfish need to flaunt it in front of others, they get awards for it and everything.

I suppose that is possible, however, the Bible is not an entity and cannot mean anything. The best you can do is to hope that you know exactly what opinions the authors about 2000 years ago were trying to express.

The law was kept perfectly by Christ. And all its penalties against God’s sinful people were poured out on Christ. Therefore, the law is now manifestly not the path to righteousness, Christ is. The ultimate goal of the law is that we would look to Christ, not law-keeping, for our righteousness.

Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Ok, so Christ brought an end to the law? I'll ask again (since you didn't answer it the first time) . . . what laws? If eating a cheeseburger is no longer a sin, is adultery now OK?

The blood sacrifices ceased because Christ fulfilled all that they were pointing toward. He was the final, unrepeatable sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:12: “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”The priesthood that stood between worshipper and God has ceased. Hebrews 7:23-24: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.”

The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore Christianity has not geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem. John 4:21-23: “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.’” John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . He was speaking about the temple of his body.” Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18-19: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean).’”

The establishment of civil law on the basis of an ethnically rooted people, who are ruled directly by God, has ceased. The people of God are no longer a unified political body or an ethnic group or a nation-state, but are exiles and sojourners among all ethnic groups and all states. Therefore, God’s will for states is not taken directly from the Old Testament theocratic order, but should now be reestablished from place to place and from time to time by means that correspond to God’s sovereign rule over all peoples, and that correspond to the fact that genuine obedience, rooted as it is in faith in Christ, cannot be coerced by law. The state is therefore grounded in God, but not expressive of God’s immediate rule. Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.”

These are not your words so I will not ask you to defend them, even though you presented them as an answer to my question. I will, instead, ask a simple question in the vain hope that I will receive a simple answer.

If Jesus was the end (fulfillment) of the law . . .

1. Which laws have been "fulfilled" and which laws are still in place. You have a list above. Is that it? 2. How do you know? Where does Jesus recant the statement that "Not one jot or tittle of the law will be altered?"

Logged

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

The blood sacrifices ceased because Christ fulfilled all that they were pointing toward. He was the final, unrepeatable sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:12: “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”The priesthood that stood between worshipper and God has ceased. Hebrews 7:23-24: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.”

The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore Christianity has not geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem. John 4:21-23: “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.’” John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . He was speaking about the temple of his body.” Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18-19: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean).’”

The establishment of civil law on the basis of an ethnically rooted people, who are ruled directly by God, has ceased. The people of God are no longer a unified political body or an ethnic group or a nation-state, but are exiles and sojourners among all ethnic groups and all states. Therefore, God’s will for states is not taken directly from the Old Testament theocratic order, but should now be reestablished from place to place and from time to time by means that correspond to God’s sovereign rule over all peoples, and that correspond to the fact that genuine obedience, rooted as it is in faith in Christ, cannot be coerced by law. The state is therefore grounded in God, but not expressive of God’s immediate rule. Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.”

These are not your words so I will not ask you to defend them, even though you presented them as an answer to my question. I will, instead, ask a simple question in the vain hope that I will receive a simple answer.

If Jesus was the end (fulfillment) of the law . . .

1. Which laws have been "fulfilled" and which laws are still in place. You have a list above. Is that it?

As Piper said, the laws concerning: blood sacrifices, the priesthood, the Temple, food/dietary laws (enjoy that cheeseburger with a few slices of bacon), and civil laws specific to the Jews in a theocratic nation.

Quote

2. How do you know? Where does Jesus recant the statement that "Not one jot or tittle of the law will be altered?"

By knowing what the Bible says about this subject. The law has not been altered, it was accomplished completely through Jesus' perfect obedience in His life and in giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

So you don't see any cognitive dissonance with a loving God who condemns billions of his creation to eternal damnation because they cannot follow overly-restrictive, arbitrary dietary rules that can only be changed at a pre-defined moment in the future through the act of the same "loving" God sacrificing himself, to himself, to allow himself to make this change?

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

The law has not been altered, it was accomplished completely through Jesus' perfect obedience in His life and in giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.

Missed this. Please explain. The law no longer applies but it has not been altered? The law still exists then? The law does or does not apply? If a law still exists on "paper" but is no longer enforced then it has been, for all intents and purposes, nullified. The nullification of a law is an alteration. The 13th amendment nullified all laws concerning slavery. The original text of the laws still exist but they have been nullified. The laws themselves are no longer laws. Did the 13th amendment fulfill the laws concerning slavery?

« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 11:26:15 PM by ButterFlavoredPam »

Logged

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

The law has not been altered, it was accomplished completely through Jesus' perfect obedience in His life and in giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.

Missed this. Please explain. The law no longer applies but it has not been altered? The law still exists then? The law does or does not apply? If a law still exists on "paper" but is no longer enforced then it has been, for all intents and purposes, nullified. The nullification of a law is an alteration. The 13th amendment nullified all laws concerning slavery. The original text of the laws still exist but they have been nullified. The laws themselves are no longer laws. Did the 13th amendment fulfill the laws concerning slavery?

BFP, I'm not sure that nullified would be the correct term, but it is close. Think of a contract whose terms have been fulfilled or completed. The complete Mosaic Law wasn't altered or nullified. It was a contract between the persons of the nation of Israel and Yahweh. Jesus completely honored the contract.

The Mosaic Law found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was for the Jews, but the Moral Law which Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1 has always been written by God on men's hearts. It existed before Moses. It is this Moral Law that made it a sin for Cain to kill Abel. This Moral Law was what defined Abimelech taking Sarai to be part of his harem as sin. It is why lying (such as seen with Abraham and Jacob) is a sin. It is why the rape of Jacob's daughter was a sin. It defined homosexuality as a sin in the time of Lot, long before Moses.

I know you will not agree with me, but I am only trying to present the consensus view of Christians on this matter.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

So you don't see any cognitive dissonance with a loving God who condemns billions of his creation to eternal damnation because they cannot follow overly-restrictive, arbitrary dietary rules that can only be changed at a pre-defined moment in the future through the act of the same "loving" God sacrificing himself, to himself, to allow himself to make this change?

I'll agree that at one time I couldn't understand the big picture of why God would bring the descendants of Abraham into a political and geographical nation with a distinct set of rules just for them, some of which seemed petty at the time. The Jews were to be a very peculiar people, unlike any tribe or nation surrounding them. Strict adherence to their laws was required in order for the society to exist in the way that it was supposed to exist. Strict punishment was meant to encourage compliance with the laws, at least outward compliance even if the heart was not in it.

Since my worldview of God as Creator and Supreme Authority is different from yours, as you believe God is just a figment of someone's imagination or a bad myth, I doubt that I could ever help you to understand why I do not charge God with being evil to do with His creation as He sees fit. I do not find Him unjust for saving some and destroying others because I see that at His divine prerogative. If I thought there was evidence for His being capricious and malicious in this, I might be inclined to think as you do. I don't see the big picture that God sees, so based on what I am told about the character of God, I have faith that there is a greater good that will come from what I do not understand. Again, just trying to share the normal Christian worldview on this, I'm not expecting to convert you. Understanding why others think the way they do is a good step towards toleration, even when you disagree with them.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

The law has not been altered, it was accomplished completely through Jesus' perfect obedience in His life and in giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.

Missed this. Please explain. The law no longer applies but it has not been altered? The law still exists then? The law does or does not apply? If a law still exists on "paper" but is no longer enforced then it has been, for all intents and purposes, nullified. The nullification of a law is an alteration. The 13th amendment nullified all laws concerning slavery. The original text of the laws still exist but they have been nullified. The laws themselves are no longer laws. Did the 13th amendment fulfill the laws concerning slavery?

BFP, I'm not sure that nullified would be the correct term, but it is close. Think of a contract whose terms have been fulfilled or completed. The complete Mosaic Law wasn't altered or nullified. It was a contract between the persons of the nation of Israel and Yahweh. Jesus completely honored the contract.

The Mosaic Law found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was for the Jews, but the Moral Law which Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1 has always been written by God on men's hearts. It existed before Moses. It is this Moral Law that made it a sin for Cain to kill Abel. This Moral Law was what defined Abimelech taking Sarai to be part of his harem as sin. It is why lying (such as seen with Abraham and Jacob) is a sin. It is why the rape of Jacob's daughter was a sin. It defined homosexuality as a sin in the time of Lot, long before Moses.

I know you will not agree with me, but I am only trying to present the consensus view of Christians on this matter.

Mmmmm - wonder. You see, I thought Jesus was supposed to be part of the godhead - part of the omnicience that is god. When he told people he had to to complete the law (if he actually did) then he is guilty of serious misleading of the people. If he meant his followers were no longer bound by the Torah (the collection of 613 commandments in the forst 5 books of the bible) why did he not just say so instead of these hard-to-understand things?

As it is, it seems the Jerusalem church kept all the Torah and went to Jewish worship but also worshipped Jesus. That's the disciples, led by Peter and James (Jesus' brother) and they thought they had to keep the Torah and they had spent 3 years with Jesus. How does that happen - that part of the godhead cannot manage to get his instructions right to his own disciples?

The question comes to a head in Acts 15 when Paul comes to Jerusalem to discuss matters with the Jerusalem church. He puts it quite clearly - he can't manange to recruit people from the goyim if they are forced to accept the Torah. You know that thed end of the discussion with the expemt goy recruits from everything except food offered to idols and blood. There is not any mention in the chapter about what Jesus said or did - this is an adminstrative matter to enble the growth of the church and the funding of the Jerusalem church that Paul has been successfully doing from his churches.

So,

1. How is it that Peter and the disciples thinking keep the Torah is the thing Jesus expects of them?2. How is it that Paul, who never met Jesus, could be convinced that Torah didn't matter?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

The law has not been altered, it was accomplished completely through Jesus' perfect obedience in His life and in giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.

Missed this. Please explain. The law no longer applies but it has not been altered? The law still exists then? The law does or does not apply? If a law still exists on "paper" but is no longer enforced then it has been, for all intents and purposes, nullified. The nullification of a law is an alteration. The 13th amendment nullified all laws concerning slavery. The original text of the laws still exist but they have been nullified. The laws themselves are no longer laws. Did the 13th amendment fulfill the laws concerning slavery?

BFP, I'm not sure that nullified would be the correct term, but it is close. Think of a contract whose terms have been fulfilled or completed. The complete Mosaic Law wasn't altered or nullified. It was a contract between the persons of the nation of Israel and Yahweh. Jesus completely honored the contract.

The Mosaic Law found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was for the Jews, but the Moral Law which Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1 has always been written by God on men's hearts. It existed before Moses. It is this Moral Law that made it a sin for Cain to kill Abel. This Moral Law was what defined Abimelech taking Sarai to be part of his harem as sin. It is why lying (such as seen with Abraham and Jacob) is a sin. It is why the rape of Jacob's daughter was a sin. It defined homosexuality as a sin in the time of Lot, long before Moses.

I know you will not agree with me, but I am only trying to present the consensus view of Christians on this matter.

Mmmmm - wonder. You see, I thought Jesus was supposed to be part of the godhead - part of the omnicience that is god. When he told people he had to to complete the law (if he actually did) then he is guilty of serious misleading of the people. If he meant his followers were no longer bound by the Torah (the collection of 613 commandments in the forst 5 books of the bible) why did he not just say so instead of these hard-to-understand things?

As it is, it seems the Jerusalem church kept all the Torah and went to Jewish worship but also worshipped Jesus. That's the disciples, led by Peter and James (Jesus' brother) and they thought they had to keep the Torah and they had spent 3 years with Jesus. How does that happen - that part of the godhead cannot manage to get his instructions right to his own disciples?

The question comes to a head in Acts 15 when Paul comes to Jerusalem to discuss matters with the Jerusalem church. He puts it quite clearly - he can't manange to recruit people from the goyim if they are forced to accept the Torah. You know that thed end of the discussion with the expemt goy recruits from everything except food offered to idols and blood. There is not any mention in the chapter about what Jesus said or did - this is an adminstrative matter to enble the growth of the church and the funding of the Jerusalem church that Paul has been successfully doing from his churches.

So,

1. How is it that Peter and the disciples thinking keep the Torah is the thing Jesus expects of them?2. How is it that Paul, who never met Jesus, could be convinced that Torah didn't matter?

In response to 1: The Jerusalem Council said that Gentile believers only had to abstain from sexual immorality and from eating blood. So they were progressing. God gave Peter the vision of unclean animals coming down from the sky in a sheet and said "Eat" declaring that Peter, a Jew, could now eat bacon, shrimp, and catfish. The letter to the Galatians makes it clear that believers are not expected to keep the Mosaic Law.

In response to 2: Paul's background was that he was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" and he studied under the top rabbi at that time, Gamaliel. So what would it take for someone to go from believing that he could achieve perfect righteousness by his own efforts following the Mosaic Law to saying that the Law cannot save? Meeting Jesus on the Damascus road was probably all it took.

Here's what Paul had to say about the Law:"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16, ESV)

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

God gave Peter the vision of unclean animals coming down from the sky in a sheet and said "Eat" declaring that Peter, a Jew, could now eat bacon, shrimp, and catfish.

I'm having a little trouble following some of your reasoning. I do not want to set up a strawman argument here so I would like to ask for a clarification of something. It is your position that the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the law and that his death is the reason that it could be changed. Jesus lived a sinless life and was therefore a worthy sacrifice to free is all from sin. Without his death and subsequent resurrection we would all be subject to the laws and bacon-wrapped barbequed shrimp would still be a sin. Do I have that right?

edit - One last question . . . to live this sinless life did Jesus have to follow all the rules (including dietary)?

« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 09:10:45 PM by ButterFlavoredPam »

Logged

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

What about Mary,did she live a sinless life or would any sin she committed effect Jesus.? Sure Mary was a virgin,but she would have to be sinless as not to taint Jesus with sin. God would need the perfect vessel for Jesus to arrive in,he could have just killed Mary

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

God gave Peter the vision of unclean animals coming down from the sky in a sheet and said "Eat" declaring that Peter, a Jew, could now eat bacon, shrimp, and catfish.

I'm having a little trouble following some of your reasoning. I do not want to set up a strawman argument here so I would like to ask for a clarification of something. It is your position that the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the law and that his death is the reason that it could be changed. Jesus lived a sinless life and was therefore a worthy sacrifice to free is all from sin. Without his death and subsequent resurrection we would all be subject to the laws and bacon-wrapped barbequed shrimp would still be a sin. Do I have that right?

edit - One last question . . . to live this sinless life did Jesus have to follow all the rules (including dietary)?

No, sorry, you don't have it right. This is where reading the Bible, even if only so you'll know what it is that you don't believe, would be helpful. Not trying to sound mean here, just sayin'.

Again, the Mosaic Law as found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was for the Jews descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus completed the terms of the contract. That is different from altering or changing the contract. If you and I have a contract for me to paint your house, and I paint your house to your satisfaction, then the contract is completed. There is nothing to alter or change.

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that as long as you're not a descendant of Abaraham, Issac and Jacob, its okay to be gay?

I have a gay son and a Jewish son, but they are not one in the same. I'm just wondering if they both dodged a bullet?

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that as long as you're not a descendant of Abaraham, Issac and Jacob, its okay to be gay?

I have a gay son and a Jewish son, but they are not one in the same. I'm just wondering if they both dodged a bullet?

What he us failing to mention is that, before Jesus showed up, gentiles were cut of from the one true God. The fact that they were not under Mosaic law is an understatement. please answer my original question. I'll modify it since you are picking nits gzusfreak. Before the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the law, were the dietary restrictions for Jews still in place?. To remain sinless did Jesus have to follow these restrictions?

« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 11:58:19 PM by ButterFlavoredPam »

Logged

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

1. How is it that Peter and the disciples thinking keep the Torah is the thing Jesus expects of them?2. How is it that Paul, who never met Jesus, could be convinced that Torah didn't matter?

In response to 1: The Jerusalem Council said that Gentile believers only had to abstain from sexual immorality and from eating blood. So they were progressing. God gave Peter the vision of unclean animals coming down from the sky in a sheet and said "Eat" declaring that Peter, a Jew, could now eat bacon, shrimp, and catfish. The letter to the Galatians makes it clear that believers are not expected to keep the Mosaic Law.[/quote]

Yes, but you miss the point. Up and till the meeting in Acts 15 (effectively before Peter's 'vision') they all kept the whole Torah. Why? They have living with Jesus, apparently, for 3 years and yet did not get the message from Jesus, a law abiding Jew, that they no longer had to keep the law?

Quote

In response to 2: Paul's background was that he was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" and he studied under the top rabbi at that time, Gamaliel. So what would it take for someone to go from believing that he could achieve perfect righteousness by his own efforts following the Mosaic Law to saying that the Law cannot save? Meeting Jesus on the Damascus road was probably all it took.

Right, so Paul, having not ever met Jesus 'in the flesh' so to speak is convinced by a 'vision' of something that the Jerusalem disciples were not after 3 years with Jesus? Really?

Quote

Here's what Paul had to say about the Law:"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16, ESV)

This is what Paul has to say later. We are trying to figure out the change in Paul's and the Jerusalem Church's attitude to the Torah up to Acts 15. We have, on one hand, Torah jews worshipping Christ and we have Torah Jew giving the whole lot upwith his Gentile converts. now we could say, on the face of it, that the chnage was very convenient for the parties concerned. making the gentiles kept Torah would hardly have encouraged many in but changing to a liberal policy in which Torah is swpet away in favour of a couple of minor adjustments makes it easy to get converts.

Now remember, at this stage, we have nothing like a gospel around - irts quite early. Even if the story of Jesus completing the Torah was historic and the disciples all knew it, it is a difficult passge to work in the idea that everything they ahd done before, the Torah, could be dumped. Jesus was totally oblique if that was what he meant. Now I know you will provide the other odd texts from the gospels where Jesus tells people what you eat doesn't get into you and so on but that's only about food and only if it was written later when the gospels were written. It doesn't cover all the other 613 commandments that make up the Torah. Notice the Jesus insists on a pesach meal - or was it the day before pesach (the gospels don't agree on this) so that Jesus was still going with the Torah up to his death.

Really, nothing that Jesus was said to have done or said makes it clear that this is a new religion and the old 613 commandments are out so if the disciples changed the rules - i.e. dropped the Torah demands - they did it and not Jesus. The terms 'vison' could just as easily be seen as someone realising something they have been thinking about all of a sudden - in this case, 'that's how we can get the gentiles to join in numbers!'

Before book printing was invented in the 15th century, all books had to be copied by hand. Approximately 800 early copies of the letters of Paul have survived to the current day. No two copies are completely identical.

When copies are made by hand, mistakes will inevitably appear in the text. But there are other reasons for the differences in the text of the extant manuscripts.[...]Usually an English translation will not give the reader all the information on the variants of the text. The same was true in ancient times. Only if the scribes were producing a copy for scholarly use would they carefully note variants and give explanatory notes on the margin. But if they were producing a copy for a broad audience, they would try to produce an authentic but understandable text, as free from scribal blunders as possible.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that as long as you're not a descendant of Abaraham, Issac and Jacob, its okay to be gay?

I have a gay son and a Jewish son, but they are not one in the same. I'm just wondering if they both dodged a bullet?

I've addressed this in a previous post, but I'll do it again for you but in abbreviated form.

There is God's Moral Law, which existed from the beginning. The Moral Law is why it is wrong to murder (Cain and Abel), why rape is wrong (Jacob's daughter), why dishonesty is a sin (Abraham, Jacob), why adultery is wrong (Abimelech and Sarai), why homosexuality is wrong (Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah), and this is all before the Mosaic Law.

God's Moral Law is for everyone, the Mosaic Law incorporated the Moral Law but also added many ceremonial, dietary, and civil laws just for the Jews.

Jesus fulfilled/completed all the requirements of the Moral Law and the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law has been completed, so it no longer applies to the Jews and never applied to the Gentiles.

The Moral Law is still in effect today, except for those who do not believe in Objective Moral Truth and think it is ok to murder, rape, lie, steal, etc.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin